Malmedy REPORT US Senate - 1949

8/8/2019 Malmedy REPORT US Senate - 1949

1/37

8::t :&$=} SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION3Q

R E P O R T 50

$ .>.mg:,'.JSUBCOMPITTEE OF THEd ..%.O

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES .I UNITED STATES SENATEEIGHT Y-FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 42INVESTIGATION OF ACTION OF ARMY W ITH RESPECT

TO TRIAL OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR T HE MASSACRE OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS, BATTLE

O F THE BULGE, NEAR MALMEDY, BELGIUM, DECEMBER 1944

OCTOBER 13, 1949.-Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

- UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1949


2/37

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESMILLARD E. TYDINQS, Maryland, Chairman

RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia STYLES BRIDGES, New HempshireHARRY FLOOD BYR D, Virginia CHAN GU RNE Y, South DakotaVIRGIL CHAPMAN, Kentucky LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, MassachusettsLYNDON B. JOHNSON, Texas WAYNE MORSE, OregonESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee RAYMOND E. BALDWIN, ConnecticutLESTER C. HUNT, Wyoming WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, California

1.NELSONTRIBBY,C k ~ k

RAYMOND E. BALDWIN, Connecticut, Subcommittee Chairman EST ES KEFAUVER, Tennessee LES TER C. HUN T, Wyoming


3/37

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION Th e ollowing report was presented to the Committee on Arm ed Servicesby the subcommittee chairman, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin, at thecommittee meeting on October IS. Th e report w as una nim ous ly approvedby the committee and Senator Baldwin thereupon presented it to theSenate on October 14, 1949.

On March 29, 1949, a subcommittee of the Senate Armed ServicesCommitt,ee, consisting of Senators Raymond E. Baldwin (chairman)Estes Kefauver, and Lester 0.Hunt, was appointed to consider SenateResolution 42. This resolution was introduced for the purpose ofsecuring consideration of certain charges which had been made con-cerning the conduct of the prosecution in the Malmedy atrocity caseand to effectuate a thorough study of the court procedures and post-trial reviews of the case. It must be clearly understood that thefunction of this subcommittee is a legislative one only. I t is not thefunction of this subcommittee, therefore, to retry the cases, to act asa board of appeals or reviewing authority, or to make any recommen-dations concerning the sentences. The subcommittee has, however,found it necessary to fully review the investigative and trial procedurein order to make its recommendations.The investigation automatically divided itself into specific phases;the &st dealing with the charges of physical mistreatment and duresson the part of the War Crimes Investigation personnel, and the secondcovering those matters of law and legal procedure which should beexamined in an effort to determine their propriety and the degree towhich they might be improved to meet future requirements. As theinvestigation proceeded, a third phase evolved which has causedconsiderable concern and which deals with the motivation behind thecurrent efforts to discredit American military government in general,and using the war crimes procedures in particular, as a part of thatplan.During the conduct of the investigations, the subcommittee and itsstaff held hearings extending over a period of several months, ex-amined 108 witnesses, and independently, as well as through otheragencies, of the Government, conducted careful investigations intocertain of the matters germane to the subject. It should be pointedout that witnesses representing every phase of this problem wereheard, including persons who were imprisoned at Schwabisch Hall andtheir attorneys, members of the investigating team, members of thecourt who tried the cases, the reviewing oBcers who reviewed therecord of trial, religious leaders, and other interested parties. Everywitness who was suggested to the subcommittee, or whom it dis-covered through its own efforts, was heard and carefully examined bythe members of the subcorn it tee, other hterested Senators, and the

1


4/37

2 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONsubcommittee staff. All affidavits submitted to the committee havebeen translated and studied. I t is felt that the record is compIete andadequate to support the findings and conclusions in this respect.An important part of the investigation was the conducting of acomplete physical examination of many of those persons who claimedphysical mistreatment, some of whom alleged they received perma-nent injuries of a nature capable of accurate determination. Theseexaminations were conducted by a staff of outstanding doctors anddentists from the Public Health Service of the United States.Advice and assistance were also requested from the American BarAssociation and other groups with particular knowledge in the fieldof law and military courts and commissions.

In the minds of a great many persons, the Malmedy atrocities arelimited to those connected with the Malmedy crossroads incidentwhich, in fact, is only a part of the charges preferred against theGerman SS troopers in this particular case. The atrocities withwhich the accused in the Malmedy case were charged were part of aseries committed a t several localities in Belgium, starting on Decem-ber 16, 1944, and lasting until approximately January 13, 1945.lThey occurred during the so-called Battle of the Bulge and werecommitted by the organization known as Combat Group Peiper,which was essentially the first SS Panzer Regiment commanded byCol. Joachim Peiper. All the members of this combat team, andparticularly those involved in the Malmedy trial were members of theWaffen SS org anizati~n.~ he regiment had had a long and notoriousmilitary record on both the western and eastern fronts. On theeastern front, one of the battalions of the Combat Group Peiper, whilecommanded by Peiper, earned the nickname of Blow Torch Battalionafter burning two villages and killing all the inhabitants thereof.Peiper had at one time been an adjutant to Heinrich H i m m l e r .V h eprisoners under investigation were for the most part hardened veterans.

Basically, the atrocities which were committed a t 12 places through-out Belgium consisted, according to accounts of different witnesses, ofthe killing of approximately 350 unarmed American prisoners of war,after they had surrendered, and 100 Belgian civilians. I t was one ofthe few cases where substantial numbers of Americans were murdereden masse. The location and approximate number of persons murderedat these various points are contained in the following table:4Prisonersof war Civilians-

Honsfeld, Dec. 17, 1944 .......................................................... 19 ............ Bullingen, Dec. 17, 1944 ......................................................... 50 1 Crossroads. Dec. 17, 1944......................................................... 86 ............ Ligneuville, Dec. 17, 1944........................................................ 58 ............ Stavelot, Dec. 18-21, 1944 ....................................................... 8 93 Cheneux, Dec. 17-18, 1944........................................................ 31 ............ La Qleize, Dec. 18, 1944 ......................................................... 45 ............. Stoumont, Dee. 19, 1944.......................................................... 44 1 Wanne Dee. 20-21, 1944..................................................................... 5 ~utrebbis,Dec. 31, 1944 .................................................................... 1 Trbis Ponts Dec. 18-20, 1944..................................................... 1 1 10 Petit Thier, Jan. 10-13, 1945...................................................... I ............ I Charge sheet appendix. subcommittee hearings. p. 1572.9 Record of trial pp. 32 to 70.a Record of trial' cross-examination Peiper, pp. 1288,1289 1968. '4 Con~pilaliouoi figures ooutaiued iu revieu-by deputy hdgc adrocntc for mn


5/37

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 3DEVELOPMENTF PRETRIALNVESTIGATION

Concurrently with the defeat of the Germans in the so-called Battleof the Bulge, investigations were started concerning the massacre ofAmerican prisoners of war. This preliminary work resulted in a .determination that the Malmedy massacre had in all probability beenperpetrated by personnel of the Combat Team Peiper, who werescattered throughout prison camps, hospitals, and labor detachmentsin Germany, Austria, the liberated countries, and even the UnitedStates.= Conditions in the prison camps, however, were such thatafter interrogation, those interrogated were able to rejoin their com-radcs and all soon knew exactly what information the investigatorsd e ~ i r e d . ~t became clear that the suspects could not be properlyinterrogated until facilities were available which would prevent themfrom communicating with eech other before and during and afterinterrogation. According to the evidence submitted to the subcom-mittee, it was during this period that it became known that prior tothe beginning of the hrdennes offensive, the SS troops were sworn tosecrecy regarding any orders they had received concerning the killingof prisoners of war.7 In accordance with the plan for further investi-gation of this case, all the members of the Combat Team Beiper weretransferred to the internment camp at Zuffenhausen. They wereinitially there housed in a single barracks where it was still impossibleto maintain any security of communication between the accu~ed.~During this time it was learned that Colonel Peiper gave instructionsto blame the Malmedy massacre on a Major Poetchke, who had beenkilled in Austrisl during the last days of the war.g These orders werecarefully foliowed by those under investigation. Accordingly, furthersteps were deemed to be necessary, and those prisoners who were stillsuspect were evacuated to an interrogation center a t Schwabisch Hall,where they were housed in an up-to-date German prison, but whereduring investigation they were kept in cells by them~elves .'~nitiallythere were over 400 of these prisoners evacuated to Schwabisch Hall,and from time to time others were transferred to the prison, up to andincluding the latter par t of March 1946. I t was during this period ofinterrogation at Schwabisch Hall that the alleged mistreatment ofprisoners took place.

For the purposes of this report, the matters under discussion areseparated according to the three phases of the investigation set outabove, i. e.: (1) Matters of duress during the pretrial investigation;(2) trial and review procedures; and (3) the manner in which currentsituation has been agitated.1 . Matters of duress during pretrial investigation

During 1948 and 1949 charges were made which caused considerablepublicity concerning the treatment of these SS prisoners a t SchwabischHall. The prisoners were confined a t Schwabisch Hall from December1945 to April 1946 and the pretrial investigations occurred then.6 Subcommittee hearings, p p . 34, 270; record of trial, E x. p. 27. Subcommittee hearings, p p . 34. 271. 7 Subcommittee hearggs,p . 34 .8 Subcommittee hearmgs p p . 34, 271. 0 Subcommitteehearings' p . 34. 10 Subcommittee hearing;, p p . 34, 272,1241, 1242.


6/37

4 MALMEDY MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O NIn April 1946 the pretrial investigations having been completed theprisoners were removed to Dachau.ll There their trial began onMay 16 and continued until July 16.Shortly after the defense counsel began to work on the case atDachau, they prepared a questionnaire for distribution to the accused,which contained, among other things, questions concerning anyphysical abuses or d~ r e s s . ' ~ he subcommittee made every effortto secure the original of these executed questionnaires but they wereapparently destroyed when the case was over. As a result of informa-tion furnished on these questionnaires and statements that had beenmade concerning duress, the defense counsel before trial, throughtheir chief counsel, Col. Willis M. Everett reported the matter to theThird Army judge advocate in charge of war crimes.13 ColonelEverett later conferred with the deputy theater judge advocategenera1 for war crimes who ordered an investigation to be conductedat once by Lt. Col. Edwin J. Carpenter, who testified before thesubcommittee.14 During his investigation which was completed beforethe trial, between 20 and 30 of the accused who made the most seriouscharges of duress were examined.15 According to Colonel Carpenter'stestimony before the subcommittee, which was confirmed by independ-ent testimony given by the interpreter used by him a t that time, onlyfour of this group stated that anyone had abused them phy~ically.'~These four did not claim physical abuse in connection with securingconfessions, but rather punchings and pushings by guards while beingmoved from one cell to another.17 However, during his investigation,considerable emphasis was placed on the use of so-called mock trials,solitary confinement, and mention was made of the use of hoods, andinsults.ls The investigating officer in this case (Colonel Carpenter),and the deputy theater judge advocate for war crimes (Col. ClaudeB. Mickelwaite), to whom these charges were made stated to the sub-committee that they felt the seriousness of the matters reported bythe defense counsel were not established and therefore were not ofparticular import, but that the use of some of the tricks, and inparticular the mock trials had been established, and should be ex-plained to the court at the start of the trial so that i t could weighevidence introduced in the light of the accusations made by theaccused.lgAt the time of the trial 9 of the 74 accused took the stand in theirown behalf. Of this number, 3 alleged physical mistreatment. Thecourt was thereby placed on notice of the charges of physical mis-treatment made by those who took the stand in their own behalf,and apparently did not feel that i t was of such importance as to re-quire any further investigation or study.'O Some 16 months afterconviction practically every one of the accused becan to submit affi-davits repudiating their former confessions and alleging aggravatedduress of all types.21 (The word "confession" has been used to de-

11 S uh com m i t t~~earinas. D. 407. 12 Subcommittee hearinss, pp . 36, 576.885. !3 Subcommittee hearinss, OD. 4%. 9?0,15GO. 1561. 1' Subcommittee hearings; p ~ . ?8. 894; 920. 1564. 16 Suhcommittee hearinrrs. DD. 887.941. and Everel 10 ~ u h h m m i t t e ehearings; pp. 887; 942: 17 Suhcomrnittee hearings pp. 893, 942-943. 18 Suhcommittee hemines: p p . 887. S W , 942-943. 1s Suhcommittee hearinss pp . 891.920. 20 Subcommittee hearings: pp. 1393, 1423. fl Subcommittee files.


7/37

5ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONscribe the documents secured from the prisoners. These were in fact,in large part, statements which described places, dates, and events inwhich the signer took part or witnessed the acts and conduct of otheraccused.) These affidavits were secured by German attorneys, par-ticularly Dr. Eugen Leer, a defense counsel at the trial, who is the mostactive attorney in this case a t the present time.22 These affidavitswere later used by Col. W. M. Everett in his petition to the SupremeCourt for a writ of habeus corpus in this case.23 I n addition,affidavits to such matters were, in a few cases, submitted by otherswho were at Schwabisch HalI but who were not defendants in theMany of these affidavits were so lurid in their claims as toshock even the most calloused reader. The subcommittee accord-ingly has gone to great lengths to attempt to establish the facts asthey pertain to these matters.

Before proceeding with an item-by-item discussion of the types ofduress alleged by various persons, it is necessary to describe in somedetail the prison a t Schwabisch Hall and its method of operation.The prison is located in the heart of a thriving and prosperous city ofapproximately 25,000 population and is a modern stone-and-concreteprison for civil prisoners. Since it is located at the foot of a hill, it ispossible for persons living next to the prison, on the higher ground, tolook down into the prison yard, and on quiet nights to hear soundsfrom within the prison enclosure.The prison was taken over by the United States authorities pri-marily for use as an internment center for political prisoners. How-ever, when it was decided to concentrate the Malmedy suspects atthis point, a portion of the prison was set aside for the housing andinterrogation of these men.25 They were separated completely fromthe political prisoners, with the exception of a few of the interneeswho performed routine prison duties. These few gained some knowl-edge of the handling of the Malmedy suspects, but were forbidden tospeak to them.26The administration of Schwabisch Hall prison was under thecontrol of the Seventh Army and there was a detachment stationeda t the prison for this purpose. This group was headed by a Capt.John T. Evans, who testified before the subcommittee and whodescribed in detail the normal prison administration. His organizationwas responsible for the housing, guarding, feeding, clothing, medicalcare, well-being, and all other matters pertaining to the prisoners.27The men who conducted the interrogation were members of a warcrime investigating team sent down to the prison from the WarCrimes Branch through Third Army Headquarters. They had noresponsibility other than to prepare the case for trial and no controlover the administrative functions of the prison.28There was a considerable difference in the method in which theMalmedy suspects and the political prisoners were handled. Themedical care of the lMalrnedy prisoners was charged to an Americanmedical detachment stationed a t the prison, with necessary hospitali-

aa Subcommittee hearings p 1433.23 Subcommittee hearings' extnbit A p. 1189.24 Subcommittee files, e d i b i t 23-alcused affidavits attached to petitions filed by Dr. Eugen Leer onFebruary 1, 1958, A pr i lp , 1948, Junp 16, 1949, and August24, 1948.2%Subcommittee hesrmgs, pp. 31,272,323,805,1241.28 Subcommittee hearines, pp. 116,641,864,1256.21 Suhcommittee hearinzs. p. 323 et seq.10 Subcommittee bearings, pp . 35, 273,346, 911,1059, 1242, 1243.


8/37

6 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONzation being handled in nearby United States Army hospitals. Ac-cording to the testimony given the subcommittee, all such medicalmatters were handled by American medical personnel, and only a fewof the dental cases were treated by a German civilian dentist, whocame into the prison periodically for the purpose of treating theinternees. As to the manner of providing dental care, t,here is con-siderable variance in the testimony introduced be,fore the subcom-mittee, and it will be discussed in detail later in this report. Theinternees were cared for by German medical personnel who wereinterned in t,he prison or who were brought in from the outside.29The interrogation team, consist,ing of approximately I 2 members,30set up offices in one wing of the prison. They were primarily on thesecond floor, and in this same wing there were cells used for interroga-tion as well as for the administrative a.ctivities of the Inaddition there were five cells whi.ch in design and c,onstruction weredifferent from the normal cells found throughout the prison.32 Thesubcommittee checked many of the prison cells. The normal ones,without exception, were well-lighted, adequate in size for two or moreoccupants, had t 'oilet~,~~nd were on a central heating plant withradiators that apparently were working during the time the prisonwas occupied by the Malmedy s u ~ p e c t s . ~ 9 h e s eells uTcreof solidconstruction with a solid door contai~ling small peephole throughwhich the occupant could be seen and hearcl. Loud conversation ornoise within the cells could be heard by occupants of ot.her cells,and, of course, if they called through the windows it could be heardpretty generally throughout the prison.35 The five cells referred to,which were located immediately adjacenh to the cells used for inter-rogation, differed in that they had smaller windows which were higherin the room and therefore did not give as much light. The cellswere adequate, as far as size was concerned, for one or two occupants.36They all had flush toilet,^. However, th.e.re was an interior iron grilleimmediately inside the ma,in door which separated the prisoner fromthe door itself.36 Food conld be, and according to testimony beforethe subcommittee was, passed to t,he prisoners through an aperturein the steel grille a t the !ower part of the grille on t,he right-hand sideas the cells were entered.36 I t ma,s in these five cells that prisonerswere retained during certain phases of their interrogation. Theyhave been labeled by various persons as death cells, dask cells, andsolitary confinement cells. Prom the standpoint of physical con-finement, there is no evidence before the subcommittee to indicatethat t,hese cells were any worse than are to be found in nny normalprison. However, there is much conflicting testimony as to theiruse. Members of the interrogation team, testifying before the sub-committee, stated that no one was confined in these cells for longerthan 2 or 3 days at a time, during which they receivecl normal treat-ment and rations.37 Other statement,^ have been made to the effectthat prisoners were kept in the special cells for weeks on and,

2) Subcommittee hearings, pp. 129, 326, 334,335, 641, 845, 847, 848, 862, 864 et seq., 1256. 30 Subcommittee hearings, p . 31. 31 Visual examination by subcommittee; subcommittee hearings, pp. 34, 273, 340, 822, 1262. 32 Visual examination by subcommittee: subcornmittce hea*,ings,P. 335. 33 Visual examination by subcommittee: subcommit tee hearings, p p . 128 328 336, 865. 34 Visual examination by subcommittee; subcommittec hearings. PP. ,124: 3511 38 Visual examination and tests by subcommittee; subcommittee hearings, P. 335. 38 Visual examination and tests b y subcommittee. 31 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 36, 49, 118, 1241, 1242. 38 Subcommittee flles. Leer petitions and affidavits.


9/37

7ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOI\Tsome alleged, without Others said they were fed but stayedtherc for long p~riods.~~ that c!xxxction hc pciatcc!, it shod?out that there are only five such cells and several hmdred suspectswere screened during a period of 4The bulk of the Malmedy suspects were housed in a cell block in awing of the prison which was separated from the interrogation cellsby a c o ~ r t y a r d . ~ ~mmediately adjacent to this wing, in vrhich mostof the Malmedy prisoners were housed, was a separate building whichcontained, on the second floor, a hospital dispensary used mainly forthe political internees.43 The ground floor contained the prisonkitchen. Up until the time individuals under interrogation for theMalmedy crimes had completed their interrogation, they were movedthrough this courtyard and between other points, with a black hoodover their heads in order to insure security insofar as their knowingwho else was under interr~gation.~~I . Mock trials

The subcommittee found that, in not more than 12 cases of theseveral hundred suspects interrogated by the war crimes investiga-tion team, mock trials were used in an effort to elicit confessions andto soften the suspects up for further interrogation. The evidencegiven concerning these trials is extremely conflicting, even amongthe persons who alleged they were subject to a mock trial. Thereis no question that mock trials were used.45 The members of theprosecution staff stated that the results obtained were very unsatis-factory and that they used this procedure, which they called theschnell procedure, on only the less intelligent and more impressionablesuspect^.^The subcommittee believes the general facts about the trials to beundisputed. There was a table within a room, which was coveredwith a black cloth and on which was a crucifix and two lighted candles.Behind this table would be placed two or three members of the warcrimes investigation team, who, in the minds of the suspects, wouldbe viewed as judges of the court. A prisoner would be brought inwith his hood on, which was removed after he entered the room. Twomembers of the prosecution team, usually German-speaking members,would then begin to harangue the prisoner, one approaching the matteras though he were the prosecutor or hostile interrogator, and the otherfrom the angle of a defense attorney or friendly in te r r~ ga to r .~~hesubcommittee could find no evidence to support the position that thesuspect was told, specifically in so many words, that anyone was hisdefense attorney. However, there is no question that the suspectquite logically believed that one of these persons was on his side, andmay have assumed that he was his defense counsel." The subcom-mittee does not believe that these mock trials were ever carriedthrough to where a sentence was pronounced, nor was any evidencefound of any physical brutality in connection with the mock trials

30 Subcommittee files, Leer petitions and affidavits.4OSubcommittee files. Leer petitions and affidavits.( 1 Subcommittee files,pp. 34,35, 136, 272.42 Visual inspection by subcommittee' subcommittee hearings p. 366.43 Visual inspection by subcommitteef subcommittee hearings: pp. 647, 648, 1261.44 Subcommittee hearings pp. 35 346 353 367 1276 1300 1326.45 Subcommittee hearings' pp. 4iet ai., 1 i 4 eth.,2k,355 et al., 666, 1267, 1299, 1330.46 Subcommittee hearings' pp. 134 '306.4 1 ~ubcommjt tee earings: pp. 40. ii7,118, 157, 162, 276,340, 397, 723, 807, 831, 872, 1267,4s Qubcommlttee iles, posttrial affidavits of accused.


10/37

8 M A L M E D Y M A S S A C R E I N V E S T IG A T IO Nthemselves. I n fact, one witness who was attacking the war crimesinvestigation team procedures testified that there was no brutalityin connection with a mock tria l a t which he had served as a reporter.49When these mock trials had reached a certain poict they would bedisbanded and the prisoner talcen back to his cell, after which theperson who had posed as his friend would attempt to persuade thesuspect to give a ~ta ternent .~ 'Thc subcommittee feels that the use of the mock trials was a gravemistake. The fact that they were used has been exploited to such adegree by various persons that American authorities have unquestion-ably leaned over backward in reviewing any cases affectcd by mocktrials. As a result, it appears many sentences have been commutedthat otherwise might not have been changed.jl I t is interesting tonote why such a procedure was started. Lieutenant Pcrl, one ofthe interrogaters, stated that the so-called mocli trials were his sug-gestion, and had been pstterned after German criminal procedure withwhich the suspects were familiar.j2 Since he was a native-bornAustrian, and a continental lawyer, the procedures seemed proper tohim.53 Because of the great attention paid to the mocli trials by theSimpson Commission, and because Judge Van Roden publicized themso thoroughly, the subcommittee has mad2 a comprehensive study ofthe pretrial procedure prevalent on the Continent. The full reporton this subject is a part of the subcommittee r e c ~ r d s . ~ "It is a fact that in France, Germany, and Austria there is an estab-lished pretrial examination procedure in which an examining judgehears evidence from any and all persons concerned. Generally speak-ing, this procedure is only used in the most important criminal cases.During this pretrial investigation t,he evidence that is secured maybe of the most circumstantial nature, but i t is later admissible at thereal trial for such probative value as the court desires to place uponit.55 Thc subcomrnittee is fully sf the opinion that this was the basisfor the use of the so-called mock trials, even though they differed inthe window dressing and stage effects that the interrogation team usedfor their own purposes.2. Solitary confinement

The subcommittee feels tha t there is no doubt tha t many of thesuspects in the Malmedy case were kept in separate cells for extendedperiods of time, but has no criticism or complaint of this normalpractice. This is because i t was necessary to keep the suspects sepa-rated until interrogation was completed. The preponderance of evi-dence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that such confinement masunder the most favorable conditions tha t the circumstan~es ermitted,and that during this time the men were fed, were warm, and sufferedno more inconvenience than one would normally except to find in anordinary civilian prison in the United States.3. Short rations and bread and water

The subcommittee is convinced that, with the exception of oneoccasion, the suspects in the Malmedy matter were fed three ade-' Subcommittee hearines. D. 15 7 e t sea. 50 Subcommittee hearin&: 6.276


11/37

9ALMEDY M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O Nquate meals a day. Some of the persons who had been interrogatedat Schwabisch Hall testified before tzhr subcommittee, and on otheroccasions, that the food supply was adequate,56which corroboratescompletely the statements of the administrative staff of the prison,including the American medical personnel, who were categoric instating that the prisoners were well fed.57 The one excrption was inlate December 1945, during a period of time which varies accordingto the testimony from four meals, according to the American medicalpersonnel, to 4 days, according to some of the suspects in the case,during which all of the Malmedy suspects were placed on bread andwater.58 I t is an established fact that it was punishment placed onthe group because of the efforts of some of the prisoners to commun-icate with others by marking the bottoms of their mess kits.59 Itwas also testified that i t required some time to eradicate the markingsfrom these utensils before they were put in use again.60 The Americanmedical officer in charge stated that when he learned that they wereon a bread and water diet, he went to the prison commander and thechief of the war crimes investigation team and told them that hewould not permit bread and water punishment to be given unlessproperly reported. Accordingly it was stopped.61 The subcom-mittee was unable to ascertain accurately as to how many regularmeals the prisoners missed. Varying testimony ranged from fourmeals to 4 days.62 However, the prisoners received adequate breadand water during this period which punishment is both legal andsometimes used within our own Navy and Marine- Corps. Otherthan this, there appears to be no evidence that the prisoners wereeither starved or placed on short rations, and certainly it should nothave affected the securing of evidence by the war crimes investigatingteam.4. Failure to s u p p l y drinking water. A quite freq;eni allegation made by the suspects was that theyreceived no drinking water during the entire period of their incarcera-tion, and were forced to drink from the toilets in their cells.63 Thesubcommittee does not feel that there is any foundation for this charge,or competent evidence to support it. This conclusion is arrived atfirst because of the direct testimony to the contrary by members of theAmerican administrative staff, including the guards, the doctors,medical personnel, and the members of the war crimes investigatingteam.64 This evidence taken by itself might not be conclusive, butseveral of the suspects who were interrogated by the subcommitteetestified that they received regular food, a change of underwear once aweek, shaving equipment and washing water every morning, but nodrinking water.65 On cross-examination those who alleged theyreceived no water gave conflicting answers, and admitted they receivedother liquids with their meals.66 One, who claimed he never received

86 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 1473et seq., 1503.81 Subcommittee hearings pp. .321 351 821 846, 864.8s Subcommittee hearings: pp. 298: '827: 846:89 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 186. 298. 827. 846.40 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 298, 827.a] Subcommittee hearings, PD . 846,847.82 Subcommittee hearinqs pp 186 187 298 847 1473.83 Subcommittee files, affihavits df aclused; su6committee hearings, p. 1479.84 Suhcommjttee hear!ngs, pp. 128,328,644,821,866.88 Subcommlttce hearmgs pp. 1478, 1479.60 Subcommittee hearings:p. 1498.


12/37

10 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONdrinking water during his entire stay a t Schmabisch Hall, had pre-viously testified he had been on bread and water for 4 days.6i Therewas competent testimony that one of the duties of the guards was tobring water when called for by the prisoners, and not one was deniedwater when he asked for it . The subcommittee does not feel that suchcharges can be supported, because it is difficult to believe that a groupof people who were admittedly supplying all of the necessities of lifeto the suspects would deliberately deprive them of drinking water.6. Use of hoodsIt is an undisputed fact that hoods were placed over the heads ofthe suspects when they were moved from their various cells and backand forth around the prison.63 Some few isolated charges have beenmade that the hoods were bloody and dirty.69 The subcommitteeaccepts without question the fact that the hoods were used, but inview of the previous difficulties incurred in this case when no securitywas used, and the necessity of keeping from one prisoner the knowledgeof other suspects who also were being questioned, the subcommitteedoes not condemn the use of the hoods. Members of the prisonadministrative staff, testifying before our subcommittee, stated thatthey personally had inspected the hoods; that they were not dirty,and they had never seen any evidence of blood on any of the hoods.i0However, the subcommittee recognizes that it would be possible forhoods used for such purposes to become dirty, or, in the event of anaccident, or through deliberate action of an individual, for them to havebecome bloody, without the responsible persons knowing of it .However, the weight of evidence shows to the contrary, and the sub-committee feels that the particular cha,rge of hoods being bloody isunproven.6. Beatings, kickings, torture, and other physical brutality

Many of the accused in the Malrnedy trial, as well as the so-calledeye witnesses, have testified that they were beaten severely andsadistically, not only by ~ u a r d s oving them around the prison, butby the staff of the war crmes investigating team, for the purpose ofsecuring confession^.^^ By constant repetition, and the multiplicityof these charges, they have been accepted by some persons as fact.They have been published repeatedly in various forms. In attempt-ing to arrive a t the facts in this case, the subcommittee first of allstudied the affidavits prepared by the accused some 16 months afterconviction, in which the accused claimed beatings, tor';ure, and otherduress, for the purpose of securing confessions. The subcommitteenoted that an investigation was made of these charges before the trial,when the defense attorneys alleged duress to the war crimes authorities,and an investigation was ordered.72 Evidence was introduced beforethe subcommittee to show that only four of those alleging duress a tthat time claimed to have been beaten, and that those claimed thebeatings had been administered by guards and not for the purpose ofobtaining confession^.^^ The subcommittee further noted tha t shortlythereafter when the accused were being tried, nine of the accused tookw Subcommittee hearings, p. 1498. 88 Subcommittee hearing4 pp. 35 123 367 806 831 1039. m Subcommittee files. afihavi ts df acdused; s ub co im it te e hearings, p. 161. 70 Suhbommittee hearines. p. 646. 71 Subcommittee files, affidavits 01 accused, of German witnesses. 71 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 883 e t seq., 920. 7"ubcommittee hearings. Pp. 887.9&3.


13/37

11ALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONthe stand in their own behalf, and of these nine, three alleged physicalbeatings or mi~treatment.~~he allegations do not appear to haveimpressed the court a t that time. The subcommittee took note ofthe testimony submitted to i t by the defense counsel and in particularthe testimony of Lt. Col. John S. Dwinnell, the associate chief defensecounsel, who stated that he had been primarily responsible for thedecision that no more of the accused should take the stand in theirown behalf. He stated that this decision was made because thosewho did testify were lying to save themselves to such an extent thatthey were prejudicing the-cases of other defendai~ ts .~~The subcommittee also took note of the fact that one of the witnessesfor the prosecution, Kurt Kramm, was the subject of a highly disputedruling by the court when the court refused to permit the defense attor-neys to cross-examine Kramm as to whether or not his testimony hadbeen secured as a result of duress.T6 The subcommittee studied withgreat interest the ruling of the court and found that the ruling appearedto be technically correct, for the matter had not been raised on direcbexamination. No foundation had been laid for the fact that the de-fense counsel in asking the question was attempting to attack thecredibility of the witness or his testimony when the ruling was made.The subcommittee noted that the defense attorneys did not contes$the ruling and stated that it was expected that Krarnm would returnto the stand. There is no question that he could have been called asa defense witness. However, the defense did not call Kramm to testifyregarding any physical duress used on him. The subcommittee tooknotice of the many statements made by defense attorneys, churchpeople, and others concerning brutality but found that , without excep-tion, they were hearsay to the witnesses and were predicated primarilyon the affidavits submitted by the accused themselves after convic-t i o ~ . ~ ~he subcommittee took particular note of first-hand evidencegiven by persons who were in Schwabisch Hall a t the time these bru-talities were alleged to have 0ccurred.7~ Dr. Edouard Knorr, a civiliandentist who treated internee prisoners at the prison, made an affidavitto the German defense attorneys stating tha t he had treated 15 to 20 l8of the Malmedy prisoners for injuries to the mouth in which teeth hadbeen knocked out and in one case had treated a man for a rupturedjaw.80 Dr. Knorr died this year of arteriosclerosis and so was not avail-able as a witness. The subcommittee, through investigation, discoveredthe whereabouts of his assistant who had accompanied him on most ofhis trips to Schwabisch Hall, and summoned her as a witness. This as-sistant made an impressive witness before the subcommittee and en-deavored to corroborate the statements made in Dr. Knorr's affi-davit.81 She testified that she had seen very few of these things withher own eyes, but that Dr. Knorr told her of them.82 Furthermore,Dr . Knorr had been approached by German defense attorneys for hisaffidavit, and she had helped him to prepare it.83 She also had beenapproached by attorneys after the death of Dr. Knorr for the purpose

74 Record of trial, pp. 2354, 2415. 2439. 75 Subcommittee hearings. p. 438et al. 78 Record of trial: subcomm~t teehewings, p. 422. 77 Subcommittee hearings pp. 170 594 1561. 78 Subcommjttee hearjngs: pp. 1469 et skq ,1499et seq.,1513et seq., 1523 e t seq., 1528et seq. 70 Subcommittee hearmgs, p. 604;suboomm~t teefiles.80 Subcommitteefiles, Knorr affidavit.a Subcommittee hearings, p. 1528et seq.82 Subcommittee hearmgs, p. 1524.83 Subcommittee hearings,p. 1525.


14/37

12 M A L-M ED Y M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O Nof securing her own affidavit, and she had discussed it before prepara-tion with the defense attorneys.84 She was asked if Dr. Knorr hadmaintained any dental records of the Malmedy patients treated byhim. She stated tha t records had been kept but that they had beendestroyed some time ago on Dr. Knorr's orders. She testified furtherthat normally they maintained records of everyone treated by Dr.Knorr for 10 years, but that these particular records had been de-stroyed within a couple of years after the patients were treateda5 Cer-tain aspects of the dental testimony are discussed later in the case inconnection with the thorough medical exemination made by thedoctors.An internee prisoner by the name of Dietrich Schnell prepared anaffidavit on October 1, 1948, at the request of Mrs. Sepp Dietrich, thewife of Generd Dietrich, one of the accused in this case.8G Thisaffidavit indicated a meticulous and exact knowledge of everythingthat went on in Schwabisch Hall at the time the Malmedy prisonerswere there.87 If the statements were true, they would raise a strongpresumption that all the charges made in the various accusationswere correct.Dietrich Schnell is an extremely intelligent former Nazi paratrooper.Before t.he war he was a kreisleiter in the Nazi Party in the vicinityof G ~ p p i n g e n . ~ ~ kreisleiter was one of the bulwarks of the KaziParty, and within his area, which consisted of approximately 50,000persons, Schnell literally had life-and-death authority over the people.Schnell m7as located by the staff of the subc~oxnm~ttce.nd intemogatedat some length. A copy of that interrogation, which is contained inthe subcommittee's record, indicates clearly that he had carefullymemorized the most minute details of his affidavit, including det,ailsof conversations which had been held some 3 years earlier.8g Helaher was examined .under oath by the subc~mmit t ee .~~n directquestioning, which went beyond the inaterid in the original a.ffidavit,he changed his story in substantial detail. The conflict in evidencewas very not,iceable because. of the contrast with the exact.ness of hisknowledge of all the matters in his original affidavit. The subcom-mittee took particular notice of the statements made in his affidavitconcerning the suicide of one of the suspects named Freimuth. Inhis affidavit he ga.ve considerable details of the Freirnuth matter,including the words he used when he was alleged to have shoutedfrom the window of his cell to Scl~nell.~'When the prison wasphysically exam.ined by the staff of the subcommittee, with Schnellalong for the purpose of checking the va,rious parts of his story, it masnoted that the cell number given in his affidavit, and which was con-firmed by other evidence, was an interior cell from which Frcimuthcould not have been seen by Schnell. This fact standing by itselfcasts doubt on the authenticiby of Schnell's affidavit. When he latera.ppeared before tho subcommittee, he had grasped the significanceof the situation and attempted to change the location of the cell andits number by verbal testim~ny.~~

34 Subcommiltce hearings, p. 1527.35 Subcommitteehearings, p. 1524, 1525.88 Subcommittee files, p. 1528, subcommittee files, affidavits.67 Subcommit tee Ales,,Schnell affidavit.83 Subcommittee h e a r m ~ s ,p. 1543.* S~uhrnmmitte~.earines. exhihit V.a1 s~~h&rnrni;re~ 1525 rt &a.&i&.'n;91 Subcommittee Ales, Schnell!~lfidavlt. 99 Subcommitter hearings. 1). 1541 ct seq.


15/37

13ALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONHis entire story indicated that it had been carefully prepared andrehearsed. Reduced to its essential detail and under examination, theonly direct testimony that he gave to any beating by members of thewar crimes interrogation team was one instance which he claimed tohave seen quite late at night from a window in the dispensary. Hestated, on interrogation, that he saw Lieutenant Perl strike and thenkick an accused being q~estioned.~~he room in which he claimedhe saw this done was established to be the administrative office usedby the war crimes investigating team.94 I t was denied by witnessesthat this room was ever used for in te r roga t i~n .~~urther, they testi-fied that there was interrogation at night on only one occasion.g6 Thatone interrogation was not conducted by Perl. When Schnell firstgave this story on interrogation, he described meticulously how Perlhad struck the prisoner with the back of his hand and then demon-

strated the way he then kicked him.g7 However, Schnell was takento the prison and placed at the window in the dispensary where hecould look into the room in which the alleged incidents were supposedto have taken place. By test it was determined that even a tallman could not be seen below the waist and that it would have beenimpossible for anyone to have seen a man kick another and describeit as Schnell had done on the preceding evening.98 He then qualifiedhis earlier statement that he saw Perl kick the man and said he hadmerely seen a movement of his body which indicated that he was kick-ing a man, alter which the suspect staggered back into thsSchnell also alleged that he had seen the guards beat prisoners withclubs as they were being moved from point to point around the prison.'This particular charge was made by others who submitted aEdavitsbut mas denied by other witnesse~.~ chnell also volunteered the in-formation that a set of gallows had been in the courtyard. Laterexamination of German guards, who had been present a t the time theMalnedy prisoners were there, disclosed that no gallows had everbeen in Schwabisch Hall.3 When confronted with thcir statement,Schnell qualified his statement by saying that the gallows had notbeen erected but had been on the ground and covered with ~ a n v a s . ~This was a t complete variance with his earlier story.5 One other verysignificant item in connection with Schnell's approach to this casetranspired after interrogation by the subcommittee staff. He stateddefinitely that he had not been in touch with any German attorneysor lawyers in this case but had prepared his affidavit a t the requestof Mrs. Sepp D i e t r i ~ h . ~ hrough investigation the staff discoveredthat immediately after interrogation he called Dr. Eugen Leer, aGerman attorney, who has apparently been coordinating the activitiesof all these prison~rs.~The subcommittee is convinced the Schnell, because of his Naziaffiliations, was a most interested witness. Because of the manyu Subcommittee hearings, p. 1593.Subcommittee hearings, p . 1262.0 Snbcommittee hearings. p. 1263.90 Subcommittee hearings, p p 1131, 1261.01 Subcommittee hearings. pp . 1590, 1537.08 Visnal ins~eclion y subcommittee.QO Subcommittee hearings, p. 1538.1 Subcommittee hearings, p . 1529.2 Subcommi ttee files, affidavits of accused.3 Subcommittee hearines. staff report (Chambers).4 Subcommittee hearings; p. 1535.'5 Subcommittee hearjngs, pp. 1535, 1595.6 Subcommittee h e a r q s , p. 1590.7 Subcommittee hearmgs, s ~ a f fcport.


16/37

14 . .MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONdiscrepancies in relatively minor matters and because of the definiteand substantial error in connection with the Freimuth suicide, thesubcommittee feels it should give little credence to the testimony ofSchnell. Moreover, it is clear that it was intended to fit into thepattern of well-prepared, well-organized testimony, aimed at sub-stantiating the various allegations made concerning brutality.Another witness by the name of Otto Eb!e was located through thecounterintelligence forces in Europe in the French zone. Eble wasthe man who alleged that he had had burning matches placed underhis fingernails and was the only one, as far as the subcommittee coulddiscover, who alleged that "phony" priests hnci been used in securingconfe~sions.~On examination, the subcommittee developed the factthat Eble, who had signed his affidavit as "Otto," mas in fact namedFriedrich Eble; that he had talren his brother's name of Otto and hisrank and used them during the period of time he was under investi-g a t i ~ n . ~urthermore, he has a record of four convictions on thecharge of embezzlement, and on occasion, while an internee, escapedand lived for many weeks until discovered under the name of ErwinaSennhausen, an alleged Swiss citizen.1 Or, interroga.tion by Frenchintelligence officers, his brother Otto, whose name had been used,stated that the truth was not in his brother Friedrich." Whiletestifying before the subcommittee, he gave three separate anddistinct stories as to why he used his brother's name and rank, andeach of them was probably untrue. A physical examination wasmade of Eble to determine if there were any scars indicati~g urnsunder his fingernails, which he stated had become infected. Noevidence was found to support his claim. The doctors who examinedhim stated that in their opinion the man was a pathological liar andwas incapable of telling the truth.12The obviouslp false charges made by this man Eble have beenthoroughly publicized by Judge Edward L. Van Roden and others.13They have spread as tru th the false statements of this convictedcrimina.1and liar, not only throughout our countrv but abroad.14 Theresults of such publicity have been so serious abroad as to warra.nt thespecial attent,ion of the subconimittee. Furthermore, the subcom-mittee cannot but comment that those citizens of t,he Unit,cd Stateswho have accepted and published these allegations 8.s t'ruth, withoutattempting to secure verificat,ion of the facts, have done t,heir countrya grea.t disservice.In summary, the su?xommittee considered the following evide,nce onthe subject of physical brutality and mistreatment after translrttingand studying all the affidavits and statements submitted to it . Firstof all, i t accepted as evidence the affidavits submitted by the Germansaccused after c o n ~ i c t i o n . ~ ~t is recognized that these affidavits wereself-seeking, and under examination most of them have not beencorroborated by the medical evidence and other subcommittec!investigations. Second, the subcomnlittee heard the testimony ofpersons who claimed to be eyewitnesses at Schwabisch Hall of these

a Subcommittee files, Ehle afRAavit nttechcd to Lecr petition dated April 12 , 1948.p Sahcommittce hrwincs, p. I ~ l f i .lo Subcommittee hearinas, 1 x 3 . 1518, 1520. 1521.11 Subcommittee files and hearin? p. 1599.12 Suhcornmittee hcnrines. P. 1628.13 Snhcommittee iilns article from the Promressive. news rde ase of National Council for Prevention of War.14 Suhcommit,tee fi!e< rnat,crial furnishedrhy Dr. Lrer. Dr. Aschenauer, and confidential material.13 S l l h ~ n m m i t t ~ ~ e t a1i lm, o f f i r l n v i t ~cnhmi l torl h r D r. T.wI.


17/37

15ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONvarious matters, and. their testimonay has been anaiyzeci in somedetail earlier in the report.I6 Thlrd, the subcommittee heard thearguments made by defense attorneys, both American l7and German,lswhich were not evidence in the normal sense but expressed conclusionson the part of witnesses. Fourth, there were several witnesses,namely Bailey,l9 Tiel,20 and S l ~ a n e , ~ lho testified before the sub-committee, who in their testimony indicated that they had seenincidents which would appear to corroborate, in lund, the statementsalleged by the convicted accused. On the other hand, the subcom-mittee heard the testimony of L t. Col. Edwin J. Carpenter 22 and hisinterpreter, Paul G. G ~ t h , ~ ~ho made an investigation of these allegedphysical mistreatments prior to the trial, and whose findings did notsupport to the slightest degree the claims of physical brutality made inlater affidavits by the convicted accused. The subcommittee alsoheard testimony from the war crimes interrogation team personnel,24which admittedly was from interested witnesses, but whose testimonywas given forcefully and convincingly. Many of these individualshad requested to testify so that they could state their position underoath before the subcommittee. These individuals all testified, cate-gorically, that nonc of these physical mistreatments or brutalitiesoccurred.The subcommittee also heard members of the administrative staffof the prison,25who were responsible for the care and guarding of theprisoners. These witnesses had no self-interest in this matter, andtestified strongly and definitely to the fact that there was no physicalmistreatment of the prisoner. This testimony was particularly con-vincing, since it included the testimony of the doctors and medicalenlisted personnel who were assigned to Schwabisch Hall for the pur-pose of caring for the suspects in this case. The subcommittee itselfsecured a medical staff, consisting of two doctors and a dentist ofoutstanding qualifications, from the Public Health Service of theUnited States. This medical staff independent]y examined all theMalmedy prisoners who are presently at Landsberg Prison.26 Inaddition, they also examined Eble 27 for evidence of physical abuse.They state, of those convicted prisoners a t Landsberg, 11 claim thatthey were not physically mistreated at Schwabisch Hdl, 34 allegethey were physically mistreated at Schwabisch Hall but do not claimto have received injuries which would leave evidence of a permanentnature, and 13 allege that they were physically mistreated and haveinjuries of a permanent The medical staff pointed out thatthere was1no question thati the 11 prisoners were not subjected tophysical mistreatment a t Schwabisch Hall and that the second groupof 34 prisoners had no physical evidence to support their claims ofalleged physical rnistreatme~t.~~ thef 13 who alleged physical,mistreatment with permanent results, the medical evidence does not

18 Subcommittee hearings pp. 1513 1523, 1528et seq.1 Subwmmittee hearings: see indefr.18 Subcommittee hearings, see index.18 Subcommittee hearings, p. 154 et seq.20 Subwmmittee hearings, p. 543 et seq.21 Subcommittee hearines. D. 897 et sen.22 Subcommiitee hearing< 883 et sei:23 Subcommittee hearings) p. 939 et seq.~4Subcommittee hearingss see index.26 Subcommittee hearings: see index.2' Subwmmittee hearings. D.1616et sea.: also committee files.21 Subcommittee hearinis -p. 1624 et skq.10 Subcommittee hearings'pp. 1618 1624.20 Subwmmittee hearings: pp. 1618: 1624.


18/37

16 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONsupport, to any degree, the claim of these prisoners.30 They statethat 3 had conditions which definitely were not due to physical mis-treatment, and that the remaining 10 showed physical findings whichmight possibly have resulted from physical mistreatment, but none ofthese 10 showed evidence of the severe acts alleged by the prisoners.31

All of the facts and evidence brought t'o the attention of the sub-committee through the above sources were analyzed and weighedcarefully, and the subcommittee believes there is little or no evidenceto support a conclusion that there was physical mistreatment bymembers of the interrogation team in connection with their securingevidence in the Mdmedy case. The preponderance of evidence isall to the contrary and there are too many discrepancies which appearin the allegations made concerning such physical mistreatment. Onthe other hand, the subcommittee recognizes that in individual andisolated cases there may have been instances where individuals wereslapped, shoved around, or possibly struck, but is convinced that ifthis did occur it was the irresponsible act of an individual in the heatof anger in a particular situation. Furthermore, it definitely was nota general or condoned practice. There is no substantial evidence tosupport the belief that any persons were affected, insofar as their con-victions were concerned, by physical mistreatment of this kind, evenif it might have occurred in isolated cases. The subcommit~tee sconvinced that the confessions made by the prisoners, and the evidencesubmitted at the trial were not secured through physical mistreat-ment of the accused.7 . Posturing as priests

The charge that members of the American interrogation teampostured as priests for the purpose of securing confessions has beenwidespread throughout our country. This is primarily due to thespeeches made by Judge Edward L. Van Roden and the publicationof his remarks by the National Council for the Prevention of War, andother similar organization^.^^ The sole source of the charge was,insofar as the subcommittee was able to determine, the witnessEble33 whose testimony was discussed in detail above. For thereasons previously stated, the subcommittee believes that absolutelyno credence can be given to any statement made by Eble, who is aconvicted criminal and a liar, and that there is no truth to this charge.It is considered most unfortunate that many prominent religiouspeople have been misled by the use of the uncorroborated statementsof this man, and apparently accept the allegation as being true.As will be noted throughout this report, many of the most flagrantcharges which have been so widely publicized in this case can beattributed first to the affidavit prepared by Eble, second to thecloak of authority given to his statement through the media of thepublications and speeches of Judge Van Roden, and third by theorganized dissemination of this information both in our country andabroad by the National Council for the Prevention of War.8 . Inadequate medical facilities

Many of the affidavits submitted by the persons interrogated a tSchwabisch Hall alleged that they were denied medical attention for30 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 1618 1624.31 Subwmmittee hearings pp. 1618' 162482 Subcommittee files ~rdgressive rticli and news articles.Subcommittee files! affidarit ~fEbk zttochcd to T\r. Locr's potitior; clstcdAprC:2.1046.


19/37

17ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONsuch ailmentq as they might have 34 There iq no question that therewas an American doctor and enlisted personnel stationed at Schwa-bisch Hall at all times while the Malmedy prisoners were there.36These doctors testified before the su b~ommit tee ,~~s did their superior,Captain Evans.37 Their testimony was clear, professional, andconvincing. I t is clear that they had complete responsibility for thephysical condition of the suspects and that they made every effort tomeet their responsibilities. I t was also noted that while some suspectsallege they did not receive medical attention, many other affidavitsmake reference to treatment by medical officers, enlisted personnel,and trips to American medical facilities away from Schwabisch Hall.38These latter statements made by some of the suspects corroborate thestatements made by the American personnel. Therefore, i t is theopinion of the subcommittee that there were adequate medical facilitiesavailable and in use for the Malmedy prisoners a t Schwabisch Hall.In this connection, the affidavit of Dr. Knorr should again be ex-amined.3Q In this affidavit he claimed that he had treated 15 to 20cases in which teeth had been knocked out and in 1 case a rupturedjaw. The dental member of the subcommittee's staff examined theteeth of all the accused who were convicted and who were confinedat Landsberg Prison. He examined several cases in which teethwere alleged to have been knocked out. His report is contained inthe subcommittee record and throws considerable doubt on the truthof the allegation^.^^ I t should be noted that only one of this groupclaimed to have been treated by a German civilian dentist. Therest all stated they were treated by American dental personnel a tvarious points.41 This tends to place doubt on the accuracy of theaffidavit of Dr. Knorr.9. Threa ts against fam ilies of the accused, and frate rnizatio n wi th wivesof the accused

Several of the affidavits in this case allege that members of theinterrogation team threatened the prisoners by telling them that rationcards would be taken away from their families and other punitivemeasures would be taken against them if the suspects in question didnot confess.42 The degree to which such threats were used is hard toestablish, but the subcommittee believes that in some cases some of theinterrogators did make threats of this l&d. I t is questionable as tothe effect such statements would have on the type of individual underinterrogation, but it is hard to believe that tlvs by itself would makea man perjure himself to the point of making a false confessidn andbearing false witness against his comrades. Therefore, the sub-committee concludes that in some cases such threats might havebeen used but believes they were not general in character.There were no charges made that members of the interrogation teamfraternized with wives of the accused prior to the time of trial. How-

34 Subcommittee files, affidavits of accused attached to petitions prepared by Dr. Leer dated February2, April 12, June 16, and August 24,1948.Subcommttee hearings, pp. 355, 640, 844, 862.38 Snhrnmmittnn hnarines.. -. ,nn. 844..Rfi2..-. . ... -. --. ...31 Subcommittee hearings, p. 322 et seq.38 Subcommittee ffles, affidavits of accused submitted by Dr. Leer.39 Subcommittee files. affidavit attached to Dr. Leer's petition of June 16. 1948.40 Subcommittee hearings, p. 1616 et seq.41 Subcommittee.hearings, p 1616 et seq . ubcommittee files.42 Subcornmittee-files, accusid's affidavii'attached to Dr. Leer's petition.


20/37

, I8 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONever, it was developed by the Raymond Board 43 that subsequent tothe trial, but before sentences were passed, two members of the in-terrogation team took several of the wives to the officers club where i twas obvious that they were drinking together. While this could havehad no possible effect on the outcome of the trial, in the opinion of thesubcommittee it showed a lack of good judgment on the part of theindividuals concerned and should not be condoned. One of thoseinvolved, who was not an interrogator, but a clerk with the inter-rogation team, was sent back to the States as a result of this incident,and the other, testifying before the subcommittee stated that it wasthe only time that such a thing had occurred, and that he had beenwrong.44 His attitude was such as to convince the subcommitteethat all realized that a mistake had been made. There were nocharges or evidence that any other members of the investigating teamever fraternized with the wives of the accused. The subcommitteeassumes it is the sole incident and that i t has been properly handledby the responsible authorities.10. U se of stool pigeonsMany of the affidavits alleged that the interrogation team used stoolpigeons for the purpose of securing evidence.45 This is freely ad-mitted b y the members of the interrogation team as a part of theirnormal practice,46and the subcommittee finds no grounds for com-plaint for such activities. Traditionally the use of stool pigeons hasbeen practiced by our American prosecuting authorities and is arecognized practice in criminal investigations.1I . Tr ick s of various kin ds and m ental duress

Practically all of the affidavits alleged that the prisoners had beentricked or mentally harassed to a point where they became confusedand as a result signed false confession^.^' The subcommittee made adetermined effort to find the natureibof hese various tricks. Apparentlythe members of the interrogation team gave considerable thought as tohow they could break down the resistance, silence, and deception onthe part of an individual in order to get him to talk. The pretendeduse of microphones; 48 the pretense of having information from otheraccused implicating the suspect being interrogated; 49 the plus andminus system, whereby members of the interrogation team wouldkeep a score in front of the man, putting down a plus when he told thetruth and a minus when he was thought to be lying, thereby leadinghim to believe that mathematically they were going to determine hisguilt by the answers he gave; 50 the indentification of a particularmark on his body; 61 and the confronting of individuals with other mem-bers of the organization who had turned state's evidence.62 All of thesemethods were used for the purpose of getting the prisoners to talk.There is no question that such methods were used. The subcommitteefeels that they cannot condemn them since they represent the usualand accepted methods used in criminal investigations. I t would seem

43 Subcommittee files, report of Administration of Justice Review Board, EUCOM, testimony of HarryTbon. Subcommittee hearings, p. 1281.44 Subcommittee hearings pp 1281 1283.48 Subcommittee Eles, accked's affidavits attached to Dr. Leer's petition.46 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 278 80741 Subwmmittee Elm, accused's ahdavits attached to Dr. Leer's petition.4s Subcommittee hearings. pp. 662, 827.40 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 224,614, 628, 805, 806.60 Subcommittee hearings, p. 1269.81 Subcommittee hearings. P. 524.89 Su bc o~ mi tt ee earings, pp. 661, 696, 803.


21/37

19ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONthat the buk,of the success of this interrogation stemmed from theability to confuse and deceive a group of persons who had had anopportunity to prepare their stories in advance, and who to a markeddegree were involved in a conspiracy to avoid the consequences of theacts in which they had participated. These prisoners with a few ex-ceptions were hardened, experienced members of the SS who had beenthrough many campaigns and were used to worse procedure.12. Promises of acquittal

I t was charged that many of the statements were obtained throughpromising a man that he would go free if he told the truth and thereby ,implicated othersab3Considerable argument and discussion has alreadybeen had on this particular point, and the evidence submitted to thesubcommittee is very conflicting. There is no question but that theinterrogation team published instructions in the form of SOP No. 4,which in section 4 discussed this particular matter.54 There is noquestion but that section 4a specifically forbids that any promise ofacquittal be made, but 4b appears to be a modihation of the prohibi-tion in the earlier section. All the members of the interrogation teamwho testified before the subcommittee stated that no one was promisedthat he would not be tried if he would turn state's evidence and impli-cate others.55 In fact, SOP No. 4 required that before anyone couldmake such a promise the officer in charge of the interrogation teamhad to approve such an agreement, and they categorically stated thatthis was not done. Therefore, it is the belief of the subcommitteethat while SOP No. 4 would appear to indicate that such arrangementscould have been made, it does not appear from the evidence beforethe subcommittee that any such promises were made. I t is recog-nized that it is quite a common practice in criminal cases for state'sattorneys in the United States to get a man to turn state's evidenceupon the promise that if he tells the truth he would be recommendedto the court for leniency. Here again, the subcommittee finds itextremely diEcult to assess blame because of the instructions issuedby the interrogation team, particularly since it appears that theseinstructions were never put into operation. However, this is an areain which great care must always be exercised and there is no questionthat SOP No. 4 was ambiguous in its phraseology. The subcom-mittee believes that the final decision as to whether or not any im-munity should be granted should be the decision of the court and notof those responsible for conducting the interrogation of suspects.13. Fake hangings

Several of the persons who submitted affidavits in this case testifiedthat they were either threatened with hanging or in fact did have arope placed around their necks and were pulled up off their feet severaltimes until they lost consciou~ness.~~ne of those who made thisclaim was Eblels7 whose testimony has been thoroughly discreditedand is completely unacceptable to this subcommittee. Many wit-nesses were questioned as to whether any of them ever saw ropes or arope being used in Schwabisch Hall. This has been denied by every-

23 Subcommittee files accuseds' affidavits attached to Dr. Leer's petition. 64 Subcommittee h e A g s p 272 see exhibit p. 12W. 66 Subcommittee hearings1p i . 51%et a]. 663 '824 825 1278. 68 Subcommittee Eles affihavits of acched it ts &eb to Dr. Leer's petition. b7 Subcommittee files: Eble's affidavit attached to Dr. Leer's petition of April 12, 1948, subcommittee hearings, p. 1616.


22/37

20 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIONone 58 with the exception of a witness who testified that prisoners wereled around with a rope about their necks.5g All witnesses questionedon this point, with the exception of Eble," denied that such practiceswere ever followed. The subcommittee feels in the absence of com-petent evidence to support the allegations concerning hangings that,in fact, they never happened. I1

MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE TRIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES(Supplemental report to be rendered when American Bar Association reports)The rules of procedure under which this case was tried were notthose that are used by the Anglo-Saxon nations in regularly consti-tuted military or civilian courts.61 In attempting to evaluate the

manner in which the court was conducted, the subcommittee soonfound that it was impossible to do so until this point was clearlyunderstood. For this reason, a brief history of the development ofthe war crimes procedures should be of interest.I n 1945, the London conference drew up a charter for internationalmilitary tribunals 62 to implement the decision to treat as war crim-inals individuals of the separate states who violated the so-called rulesof war. The prosecution of war criminals is nothing new in thehistory of our country. After practically all of our wars, our ownmilitary courts have tried members of the enemy forces who werecharged with the commission of war crimes.63 However, this warbrought into being for the first time the concept of an internationalmilitary court for the trial of war criminals.Prior to the late war there was an unwritten international doctrinethat heads of states would not be held responsible for acts committedby them in such capacity. The decision of the London conferencewhich resulted in the London agreement, and the charter of the Inter-national Military Tribunal before which Goering and other major Nazileaders were tried and convicted, represented the views and decisionsof the major Allied Powers engaged in that war. Personal responsi-bility of heads of states and of individuals for offenses committed bythem was recognized and set down as accepted principles of the lawsof war.'j4 The International Military Tribunal for the Far East adopt-ed these principles in the trials of the major Japanese war criminals.Both of these tribunals were composed of the representatives ofseveral of the nations involved in the conflict in each area.The rules of procedure adopted for the trials before the internationalmilitary tribunals represented a compromise between the various legalprocedures of the several Allied nations. They were a composite ofAnglo-Saxon and continental codes of justice.The subsequent proceedings against other major Nazi war criminalsat Nuremberg were conducted before military tribunals authorized bythe Allied Control Council for Germany (Control Council Law NO. 10).They were appointed by the zone commander, United States zone,

35 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 346, 367 et al.so Subcommittee hearings, p. 158.'0 Subcomm~ttee earings p. 1515.81 Mihtary Government ~ a u u a lor Legal Officers, p. 11,par. 14; also Mllitary Government Regulations,title 5, scc. 593 (a);subcommittee hearings, p. 922 et seq.01Subcomm$teo hearings, pp 918, 1583.8 3 Subcommittee hearings, p. 918 et seq. 04 Subcommittee hearings, p. 1584.


23/37

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 21r- 1 P A . 1 1 r , 1U ~ I l I l S L I l Y ,a l l U W e l t ? U J l 1 l p U D I S . U U l i ~ l l l G l l l / ~ L l 1 U l b l l b l i l U b l ,GlDUllllGl, V V l l Upart were judges from various State courts of the United States. Therules under which these courts operated were the same as those underwhich the first Nuremberg tribunal operated,65and such courts havebeen regarded as international in character.In addition, the various nations, within their respective zones ofoccupation in Germany,66and in other areas, established their ownnational military courts for the trial of lesser war criminals chargedwith violations of the laws of war. In the American zone these courtswere called military government courts which under appropriatedirectives were created especially for the trial of war criminals. I tappears that in general the rules of procedure under which these courtsoperated were an adaptation of the rules of procedure adopted for theNuremberg trial. The court that tried the Malmedy case was of thistype.The Malmedy trials deal with violations of laws and customs ofwar long recognized as such; specifically, the murder of prisoners ofwar and noncombatant civilians. The Geneva (prisoner of war)convention of July 27, 1929, and the Annex to Hague ConventionNo. I V of October 18, 1907, sets out a positive duty to protect pris-oners of war against acts of violence and prohibits the killing or wound-ing of an enemy who had laid down his arms and no longer has ameans of defending himself.

In connection with procedure it is pertinent to quote from theTechnical Manual for Legal Officers prepared by SHAEF. This wasthe basis for later rules of procedure which governed American militarygovernment courts. Section 14 of that manual reads as follows:MIIJTARY LAW.-The law of military government thu s created should not beconfused with the sta tut ory law of t he respective United Nations governing theirarmed forces.Further, this manual also contains a guide to procedure in militarygovernment courts, and in paragraph 9, section I , the following quote

brings out one of the basic differences between the system employedin this case, and that normally followed by our civilian or militarycourts:9. EVIDENCE.--RU~~12 does not incorporate the rules of evidence of Britishor American courts, or of courts martial . Th e only positive rules binding uponthe military government courts are found in rule 12 (3) , rule 17, and rule 10 (5).Hearsay evidence, including the statement of rt witness not produced, is thusadmissible, but if the matter is important and controverted, every effort shouldbe made to obtain the presence of t he witness, and an adjournment ma y be orderedfor tha t purpose. The guiding principle is t o admit only evidence that will aidin determining the tru th.The military government court a t Dachau, which tried the RIalmedycase, was operating under these rules of procedure.

Composition of the courtThe accused in the Malmedy case were tried before a general mili-tary government court appointed by paragraph 24, Special OrdersNo. 90, Headquarters, Third United States Army, dated April 9, 1945,which was subsequently corrected by paragraph 32 of Special OrdersNo. 117, Headquarters, Third Army, dated May 10, 1946.67

65 Subcommittee hearings, p. 918. 66 Subcommittee hcarmgs, p 918. 0 7 Subcommittee hearmgs, p. 1574.


24/37

22 M A L M E D Y M A SS A C R E IN V E S T I G A T I O NThe following officers were members of the court:I. Brig. Gen. Josiah T. Dalbey.2. Col. Paul H. Weiland.

3. Col. Lucien S. Berry.4. Col. James G. Watkins.5. Col. Wilfred H. Stewart.6. Col. Raymond C. Conder.7. Col. A. H. Rosenfeld, law member.8. Col. Robert R . Raymond, Jr."T i m e and facilities available to the defense

One of the complaints made by the defense counsel was that theywere not given adequate time to prepare their case for defense.68They pointed out tha t there were 74 accused in this case, and that thepretrial interrogation was completed about the middle of April, andon April 17 or 18 the accused were brought to Dachau where the trialwas to be held. The trial began on May 16.Col. Willis M. Everett, Jr., chief defense counsel, was appointed inthe early part of April, but it was not until April 11 that the defensecounsel were able to start a~sembl ing .~~ finally organizedhenabout April 20 the defense staff consisted of Col. WillisM . Everett, Jr.,Lt. Col. John S. Dwinnell, Lt. Col. Granger G. Sutton, Capt. B. N.Narvid, Second Lt. Wilbert J. Wahler, Mr. Herbert J. Strong, Mr.Prank Walters; and the following German counsel: Drs. Max Rau,Heinrich M. Wieland, Otto Leiling, Pranz J. Pfister, Eugen Leer, andHans Hert ko~ .~OOf this group, the experience and capabilities of thedefense counsel varied to a considerable degree, but Colonel Everett,Colonel Dwinnell, and, it was reported, Lieutenant Wahler had hadconsiderable court experience. The German attorneys were lawyers ofconsiderable experience but were not familiar with the manner inwhich American military courts functioned 71Testimony before the subcommittee shows that the initial groupmeeting was about April 20, and that all the time prior to that wasconsidered by the defense counsel to be lost time, excepting thatColonel Everett, the chief defense counsel, and two others, weremaking administrative arrangements such as securing table, desks,telephones, e t ~ . ~ ' his physical equipment was requisitioned fromthe Army, and there was no particular difficuty in getting deliveryof all the necessary items.73 Testimony also indicated that i t was notuntil approximately 2 weeks before the trial started that the defensecounsel received the bulk of the pretrial statements made by theaccused, and what was purported to be the bills of particulars on whichthe individuals and the entire group would be tried.74The record discloses that there was a maximum of approximately4 weeks for the defense to get ready before the trial started, whichappears to be too short a time for the study and development of aproper defense, in a case of such major proportions, and in whichthere were 74 accused. It was further testified before the subcom-mittee that i t was a very difficult proposition to secure the confidence

'Excused by verbal orders of commanding general and did not participate in any of the proceedings.88 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 40 8 et seq., 605, 1557.88 Subcommittee hearings, p. 415.70 Subcommittee hearings, p. 406; record of trial, p. 314.11 Subcommittee hearings pp. 406 1557.72 Subcommittee hearing;, p. 415:73 Subcommittee hearings, pp. 405, 415.14 R n h r o m m i t t ~ ~ 417~nrinnq,n


25/37

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 23or^ the accused, ancL 0:- course t8herewere language differences whichmade the cldensc problem more ~lifficult.~"It is recoynizecl that the defense did have some opportunity tocontinue wit11 their preparations for t h e presentation of their caseduring the time that the prosecution was presenting its CQSO, andthat th.ere was a recess of approximately 7 days, after the prosecutionrested its case before t'he defense l d o commence. There is norecord thnwt, t'hc defense requestcd furt,her time for the purpose ofpreparing tlieir cnsc. It is assumecl thel; if such a request llzd beenmade and propcdy supporlcd, it would have been granted. Thcreis evidence th at C ~ l 0 i l d verett discussed thc inntter with hig l~erauthorit,ies, and that an adrfiinistrntive decision llad been madeth at there would be no ad j~urnment , '~ut there is no record any-where that a request was made to the court, whkh, in the finalanalysis would be the group tvl iid~ hould grant such a motion forpostponen~ent.~'Notwithstanding these facts, the subcommittee is of the opinionthat due to the limited time available, t'he defense was considerablyhandicapped in preparing its case for trial. The subconimittee doesnot believe that this seriously affectccl the outcome of the trial. I nthe future courts should assure themselves that a reasonably sufficienttime has been allowed for this purpose.Insofar as facilities are concerned, the preponderance of the evidencebefore the subcommittee indicates th at t,he Army supplied everythingthat thc defense needed, as rapidly as possible, and assisted them inthis respect to the greatest possible extent.Trial of the accused en mass

One of the complaints made by the defense counsel in this matterwas that the court did not allow a severance of the various defendantsin this case. A motion of severance was filed with the court whichwas denied.78 The granting of such a motion was, of course, withinthe discretion of the court, and the subcommittee does not feel thati t has the authority to serve as an appellate court t,o judge the rulingin this particular case. The subcommittee feels that it 1s one of i tsresponsibilities, however, to comment on matters which might beimproved in the case of future trials of this kind. It is noted thaton a review of this matter by the War Grimes Eeview Board, it wasstated in conclusion that-

It does no t appear th at th e denial of t he motion resulted in an injustice t o anyof th e accused t o such a degree as would warrant a new trial.When so many accused, of varying ranks, are being tried togetheron a single charge, there must be some conflict of interest between thesuperiors and the subordinates. 011 the other hand, it is recognizedthat the scarcity of officers, and the time elements that are involvedin matters of this kind, made it extremely difficult to conduct largenumbers of trials for separate defendants.The subcommittee feels that this basic rule should govern cases ofthis kind. Where there is more than one defendant and it appearstha t their joint indictment and triad d l esult in a conflict of interestto the extent that an individual defendant or group of defendants will

78 Subcomrnittce hearings, p. 416.


26/37

24 MALMEDY WASSACRE INVESTIGATIONbe so seriously prejudiced as to prevent a fair and just trial, they shouldbe indicted and tried separately or appropriate severances granted.The Krarnm case

The defense attorneys, and the various petitions for review in thiscase, have laid considerable stress on a ruling by the court in connec-tion with the testimony of Kurt Kramm. This man was a prosecu-tion On cross-examination defense counsel attempted toraise the question of duress which had not been raised on direct ex-amination. The lam member of the court sustained the objection ofthe prosecution on the ground it was beyond the scope of the directexamination.In order that this matter may be completely understood the follow-ing quotations are made from the petition to the Supreme Court ofthe United States, filed by Col. Willis M. Everett in this case:80

The witness Kramm testified on cross-examination:"Q . In w hat period of time did you tzk e pa rt in that Russian campaign whichyou first mentioned?"PROSECUTION.object."Colonel ROSENFELD. bjection sustained. Not cross-esamination" (record,p. 215).Cross-examination of the witness:"Q. Xom, how often mould you sap you were anpros imately interrogated a tSchviabisch Hall? "PROSECUTION.object."Colonel ROSENFBLD. bjection sustained."Mr. STRONG.Mav I uerv resnectfuliy point out to th e court, with due defer-ence, that this is cross-examination * * *"Colonel ROSENFELD. t is not cross-examinat,ion, because it is without thescope of the direct examination. Th e court has ruled. Th e objection is sustained."Q. Kramm, isn't it a fact that you, during the time you meye in SchwabischHall, signed a sta tem ent f w prosecution, in question-and-answer form. consistingof avpros imatelv 20 pages?"PROSECUTION.object again.L'Colonel ~IO SE NF EL D. I t is the las t t ime th ehat is not cross-examination.court will notifv YOU." (record, p. 216)."DEFENSECOUNSEL. i t plnasc the cour t, on behalf of the defense and i!lview of th e fac t th a t t,he witness will return to the witness stanc! a t a later t imeduring this k ia l, no furthe r questions will be asked of th e witness a t this time,bu t we 2,s defense comsel would like a t this tim e an amplification of th e cour t'srulina on the objection bv th e p ro sx i~ t io n ,o our line of questions on cross-esamina,iion. Do m unde7,stand tha t in th e futu re we mill be limited to th e line ofquest,ioninq on d iv c t exalninat,ion of the witness, or will we be ~ e r m i t t e do as!< ofthe witness questions designed primarily to attack the credibility and veracityand hias of th e witness?"Colone! ROSENFELD. oth th e prosecution and the defense n-ill he pcymittedto cross-examine t.he witncss other than the accused according to the rules andregulatiol~sof cross-examination. Where thc credibility of the witness is to beattacked, th e credibilitv ! d l be attacked i n the prescribed manner a nd th e courtwill ;rermit such attack."If th e accused or an y of t he accused take the stand , cross-examination will be~ e r m i t t e dn accordance with thc rules of evidence whereby th e accused ma v becross-examined on an y mat te r in con i~ect ionwith the case" (record, p. 220-221).Testimony given before the subcommittee indicates that thedefense counsel made no effort to lay a foundation for the attack onthe credibility of the witness or to attack the manner of interrogationat Schwabisch Hall, nor did they notify the court that this was thepurpose of this line of que s t i~ n in g .~ ~or this reason it appears thatthe ruling of the court was technically correct.

70 Rccord oC trial , p . 166. 80 Suh r~ rnmi t tw i l m ? I Subcommittee hearmxs, pp. 1371,1373, Hoso~llclu; oi L ~ M I , LF>LIIUUIIY.' e w r u ~ ~ L ~ L I I I L I I


27/37

MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 25Although the subcommittee does not take the posltion that it hasthe authority to pass on the propriety of rulings made by the court,i t appears that the defense counsel, either through lack of lmo~vledgeas to how such an at tack should be made on the credibility of thewitness, or for other rcasons, did not cxercise the pxpcr diligencein pressing this point. The subcommittee fecls that i t is the dutyof the law member of the court to make certain that legal technicali-ties do not prevent the court from hearing all pertinent testimony.Therefore the law member should have advised the clefense counselas to the proper procedure to use in laying a foundation for an att'ackon the credibility of thc witness.It is noted in the quoted matter above that defense counsel saidthat they did not desire to cross-examine furt,her a t that time because

they expected that this witness would again be on the stand, and theinference was that they int,ended to call him as a defense witness, atwhich time they could have asked such questions on direct examina-tion as they saw fit. The subcommittee hesitates to draw an inferencefrom the fact tha t Kramm mas not called to the stand by the clefensefor the purpose of bringing out any matters of duress that mighthave affected his credibility as a witness for the prosecution.Failure of witnesses to take the stand in . their own beharlf

One point ivhich \iras developed during thc cou.rse of the subcom-mit.tee's investigat'ion, which is believed to be of grent importance inthis case, is the failure of the defense to permit all the accused to taketh e stand in their ownFirst of all, t~hrough e~ t~ irnonyntroduced before the subcommitteeby various persons, including the German clefense counsel, andLieutenant Colonel Dwinnell, it appears Lhat it took considerablepersuasion and argument on the part of certain of the American de-fense counsel t'o pe~sua,dehe a.ccused not to take the stand. On thesurface, that apqears to be most unusual. Bt is the opinion of the sub-committee that it is an inherent right of an accused to take the st,a.ndin his own defense. Normally, clefense counsel hesitates to persua.dea client as to the properness of his course in such a matter. Heusually limits himself to a present,at,ion of the various things thatcould happen, but leaves the decision strictly up to the defendant. I nthis case, Colonel Everett and Lieutenant Colonel Dwinnell decidedtha.t it mas best t h t the defendants not take the stand in tlicir ownbehalf, and argued strongly with them until they convinced them thatthat wa,s the proper course ofUntil the limc of that argument, li ne of t . 1 ~efmcla~nts od t z l~enthe sta.nd in their owl1 beh alf .8V&u te nan t Colonel Dwinnell, intestifying before the suhcommitt~ee,stated that these were lying somuch that they were "like a bunch of drowning rats. They wereturning on cach oth

Documents

Malmedy REPORT US Senate - 1949